I realize that this is an incredibly popular argument to make today, but I’ve also looked into this and found that the debate is far more nuanced than the summary you’ve made here. A review of all of the texts and websites involved reveals that there are in fact experts on both sides of the argument, arguing at each other. And it is this complexity which is the root cause for much of the confusion here. We need a public knowledge mapping system where the evidence and arguments on both sides start out simple, and become more complex the further one digs in.
What you’re doing here is deciding to focus upon those particular arguments which support your worldview. But, if skepticism is to be a philosophy rather than just an argumentative tactic, then it should be applied in both directions. The Sagan Standard seems to have created a culture of pseudo-skeptics, insofar as many people have stopped questioning the conventional theories. But, there are in fact good critics out there, and many reasons to be skeptical of many conventional theories. This, of course, is the “critical” part of “critical thinking”.
What I’m arguing for is that a person cannot make a reasonable assessment of a worldview in science without seeing all of the arguments laid out, in all directions. We use depth of knowledge to create things, but we should also be using breadth of knowledge to assess our beliefs in light of argument. This is basically impossible to do in comments; hence, all arguments against conventional theory fail in comments threads. I don’t know how to be more clear on this. It seems straightforward to me that a system which cannot support paradigm change will never be the source of any profound wisdom. We should be recreating the comments attached to scientific articles such that they can support actual paradigm change if the public is to have a voice which can respectably challenge a scientific article. Of course, the problem is that many of those involved are not actually interested in making that happen.
The educational system is (finally) progressing beyond equations. But, the mindset of those who have already gone through that system will not change overnight with that system. It will take generations before this mindset fades. Also, for those of us who are closely watching, it’s clear that many professors would prefer to avoid any change at all. Keep in mind that we now have the ability with the force concept inventory to measure conceptual comprehension in certain disciplines like physics both before and after a course is given to a student. It’s not new technology at this point. But, also notice that the FCI has yet to be applied as a system for helping students to figure out which college to go to.
If the point is to pretend that professional scientists are routinely critical of their own theories, I’m going to have to disagree. Wikipedia has been wiped clean on numerous important controversies, as if there is nothing at all to discuss. Various discussions of the Velikovsky debate were just a couple of weeks ago being purged from Wiki. What purpose does it serve to try to wipe clean our collective memories of that debate? It’s a bit ironic to watch these things transpire, even as global catastrophe becomes a more mainstream topic.
Those of us who used to observe the old Bad Astronomy and Universe Today forum know that we still have a long ways to go to fix this culture. Phil Plait is still out there convincing people to not pay any attention to various controversies.
Most astrophysics students today have no idea that Hannes Alfven distanced himself from the way in which astrophysicists are applying MHD in his 1970 Nobel lecture (the Nobel was awarded to him for his invention of those same models). These highly idealized models are still used today to model cosmic plasmas, and they greatly differ from our laboratory observations of plasmas in very significant (and arguably political) ways. It’s hardly a minor point, as most astrophysics textbooks introduce the subject by mentioning that 99% of what we see with our telescopes is matter in the plasma state. Cosmology basically hinges on how we model it. Nevertheless, even though there are still papers being written to this day about how the cosmic plasma models are highly idealized, and fundamentally designed to suit the gravitational worldview, students are not taught anything about this half-century controversy. And the astrophysical community continues to take advantage of the fact that the public still does not even know what a plasma is – which is very convenient for the existing theories.
You might try checking out the reviews for Jeff Schmidt’s Disciplined Minds on Amazon before you just dismiss this. We are talking about the meaning of consensus here, so one hopes that you will treat it as seriously as the decision to purchase a book by checking out the positive reviews posted, some of them by actual grad students who confirm Schmidt’s analysis …
